Samsung S10 Court: No Burning Characteristic Caused by Battery Explosion

category:Internet
 Samsung S10 Court: No Burning Characteristic Caused by Battery Explosion


Pengchao journalist Chen Xingwang Intern Luo Beibei

Peng Mei News (www.thepaper.cn) learned from Mr. Huo, the owner of Samsungs S10 self-ignited mobile phone, on the afternoon of August 19 that his lawsuit against Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huizhou Samsung), a mobile phone manufacturer, opened a court hearing in the Peoples Court of Shaibak District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang, because the two sides were on the same stage. The court adjourned the trial nearly two hours after the evidence was suspected and there was still evidence to be added.

Pengmei News reported on July 1 that Mr. Huo, who works in Urumqi, Xinjiang, bought a Samsung Galaxy S10 cell phone in Beijing East Mall on May 26. The next day after receiving the goods, the cell phone was damaged by spontaneous combustion during charging. After that, the mobile phone will be mailed to Samsungs after-sales department.

On July 2 this year, Mr. Huo received a refund for all purchase of aircraft from Jingdong Mall. On the same day, he submitted a complaint to the Peoples Court of Shaibak District, Urumqi City, requesting the court to order the defendant Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huizhou Samsung) to provide the plaintiff with a complete (mobile phone) test report within 15 days and give a reasonable explanation; ordered the defendant to have defects in its production or even serious security risks. Illegal acts such as mobile phones and failing to fulfill after-sales obligations can be publicly apologized to the plaintiff. The channels of public apology can be published on its official website, official micro-blog or public platform of Weixin, and the plaintiff will be paid a compensation of RMB 1.

It is reported that Huizhou Samsung submitted a Technical Opinion to the court. The appraisal opinion was that no high temperature fire damage caused by battery explosion and circuit board short circuit fault was found in the burned mobile phone, and the client was Renxiang Insurance Assessment (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Shanghai Branch.

Opinions show that the appraisal opinion is made through X-ray examination without dismantling the mobile phone.

Hui Renjie, Huos litigation agent, told Peng Mei News that he doubted the authenticity of the opinion. There was no traceability procedure in the opinion to show that the mobile phone was the mobile phone involved in the case. In addition, the client of the mobile phone was not Huizhou Samsung.

It is worth mentioning that Hui Renjie, the proxy entrusted by Mr. Huo, is the plaintiff in the Samsung Notee 7 Spontaneous Combustion Case which has attracted much attention before. According to the Civil Procedure Law, the parties may entrust citizens recommended by the communities, units and relevant social organizations where the parties are located as litigation agents.

Peng Mei News learned that in the court investigation stage, Huizhou Samsungs agent argued that the mobile phone involved was handled by the dealer Jingdong Company after the return of the plane, through the circulation of the after-sales department, and finally commissioned the appraisal company to issue an appraisal report; because of the need of the case, Huizhou Samsung transferred the test report and appraisal conclusions. Although the cause of spontaneous combustion was not found, it was excluded that the mobile phone was caused by high temperature fire due to battery explosion and circuit board short circuit, so the mobile phone involved was qualified product, without defects.

But Mr. Huo and his agent Hui Renjie argued that the refund of the full purchase price by Jingdong Mall was not a refund procedure, but a compensation action. They believe that the mobile phone involved should be handled by the court, and the mobile phone involved should be further dismantled for comprehensive testing.

Because the plaintiff disapproved of the foregoing opinions, the defendant, Huizhou Samsung, applied to the court to withdraw the evidence.

In the afternoon of August 19, the representative of Huizhou Samsung held in the court investigation stage that Huizhou Samsung was a manufacturing enterprise and was not qualified as the defendants main body; the mobile phone involved had no flaws and passed the compulsory national certification, which met the relevant national standards and industry standards; and according to the relevant laws on consumer protection, Who sells who? Responsibility principle, the relevant obligations of the case should be handled by the seller.

In the afternoon of the same day, after nearly two hours of court investigation, the plaintiffs and defendants cross-examined each other and the court adjourned.